German losses weren't low at all once Barbarossa started. their doctrine was superior, their training and equipment. but they would lose a lot of men, in a few days they met the total casualties of the entire war before. even worse was the fate of the SS troops. this resulted in troops never having a leave. my read a letter by my grandfather during case blue: he speculated that he will soon have a leave after 18months of constant service.

German losses weren't low at all once Barbarossa started. their doctrine was superior, their training and equipment. but they would lose a lot of men, in a few days they met the total casualties of the entire war before. even worse was the fate of the SS troops. this resulted in troops never having a leave. my read a letter by my grandfather during case blue: he speculated that he will soon have a leave after 18months of constant service.

Despite their losses German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow in December, after fighting through a Red Army which constantly had superior numbers. So what does that tell us about keeping up combat power/fighting quality on the German side?

We probably could agree that the better the training the higher losses a unit can digest (assuming replacements of the same training quality keep coming in) while keeping up its fighting power. The poorer the training (assuming replacements of the same training quality keep coming in) the less losses a unit can suffer before it loses combat effectiveness.

I like these types of discussions. I know more about the American Civil War than any other and troop quality is a great study, especially after the effects of combat suffered by most regiments. I think these observations can be compared to other wars even if they were fought at different times.

There are observations by officers that new recruits that join veteran formations become much better soldiers quicker. These regiments were able to keep their experience up even after taking heavy casualties. This is assumed that the unit was not almost destroyed in battle. The most famous Union regiment, the Iron Brigade, was never itself after Gettysburg because of the high casualties they suffered. They had taken high casualties at the Battle of Antietam (a previous battle), but was able to maintain its elite status. The point being, recruits will not lower a units experience level in all cases.

I am also a believer of good training. A well trained, led, equipped, and supplied army can have very capable "green" regiments that compare to experienced units.

I don't care for how in the game a player can create SS formations. Those should be elite formations and therefore how could someone just create them? I like the game in how units can be built, that is a big plus.

First, let me echo Reconvet's comments. I enjoy the gameplay very much and it's hard for me to put it down! I wanted to offer a few suggestions for the AI. I am not sure if they are feasible, but I thought I would mention them. These are based on my observations after playing through turn 45 of Uranus (Full) as the Soviets against the AI.

1) On defense the AI tends to cram too many units into an objective hex, which makes it easier to execute a double envelopement and trap even more units in the pocket. Is it possible to make the AI spread out more on defense? This isn't so much a problem when the front is relatively static but when the situation is fluid and it's not possible for the AI to form a continuous line of units to defend a city.

2) The AI doesn't seem to attack targets of opportunity with it's air units, like Soviet tank brigades sitting in clear terrain with no AA cover. The AI made good use of its air units when they were part of a combined-arms assault with artillery, tanks and infantry to capture an objective; however, once I began a strategic offensive all across the front and the AI began steady withdrawals, it never used its air force to harass exposed units or disrupt an imminent attack.

3) The AI tended to deploy its air units too close the front. I destroyed far more aircraft by overruning enemy air fields than I shot down with my fighters. Is it possible to make the AI redeploy its air units sooner?

4) Early in the game, the AI had naval units stationed at Novorossisk. When I setup for an attack on its naval units, it evacuated them to Kerch. Later, when I threatened Kerch, it failed to evacuate the port. As far as I know, the AI never used it's barges or transports to evacuate Axis troops, and, since they remained in Kerch, I simply blockaded the port and attacked them turn after turn until I had sunk everything. Maybe AI naval units could retreat to Yalta or Sevastopol where they might assist in a possible evacuation of the Crimea?

5) The AI should be made to garrision the western Caucasus ports like Primorsko, Yeisk and Taman, especially if Rostov has fallen. I was able to make amphibious landings at these locations over the course of a few turns and progressively threaten Axis supply lines in the Caucasus (I had already captured Rostov). During a recon mission I accidentally discovered the AI had left Novorossisk (the last supply link into the Caucaus at that point) without a garrison. I promptly made an amphibious landing on the same turn, which completely isolated the region. I also think the AI should hold mobile troops, like the Slovak Fast Division, in reserve as a Quick Reaction Force to repel any amphibious assault before the player can establish a firm bridgehead.

6) As I slowly eliminated the giant pocket I had created in the Caucasus, I noticed the AI had placed the majority of its forces, especially German infantry divisions, including recent reinforcements, in the Caucasus. This left the front from Kursk south to Mariupol without many high quality troops to defend it.

I have no idea how to program an AI, but if it's possible to modify the AI's behavior in these respects, it would make for a more challenging game.

4) Early in the game, the AI had naval units stationed at Novorossisk. When I setup for an attack on its naval units, it evacuated them to Kerch. Later, when I threatened Kerch, it failed to evacuate the port. As far as I know, the AI never used it's barges or transports to evacuate Axis troops, and, since they remained in Kerch, I simply blockaded the port and attacked them turn after turn until I had sunk everything. Maybe AI naval units could retreat to Yalta or Sevastopol where they might assist in a possible evacuation of the Crimea?

5) The AI should be made to garrision the western Caucasus ports like Primorsko, Yeisk and Taman, especially if Rostov has fallen. I was able to make amphibious landings at these locations over the course of a few turns and progressively threaten Axis supply lines in the Caucasus (I had already captured Rostov). During a recon mission I accidentally discovered the AI had left Novorossisk (the last supply link into the Caucaus at that point) without a garrison. I promptly made an amphibious landing on the same turn, which completely isolated the region. I also think the AI should hold mobile troops, like the Slovak Fast Division, in reserve as a Quick Reaction Force to repel any amphibious assault before the player can establish a firm bridgehead.

I think these are good points. As Vic has pointed out there's still some potential for improving the defensive AI with regards to it's strategic thinking. This should be some helpful feedback to go around.